If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You must register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing posts,
select the forum that you want to visit from the list below.

250.122(B) Increase in size - were did the change come from.

What I would like to know is how did the interpetation go from upsizing when having long runs and voltage drop to where it has been in the last few cylces?

I read in another thread it was due to lack of enforcement. I say hogwash.
I have read the ROP from others and Dennis Alwon. I don't agree with the angle those folk are looking at. Sorry Dennis.

We have an debate going on another thread where this rule could cause unnecessary upsizing of wire due to the current and proposed language. If the intent is really all about upsize due to long distance runs then we need to keep focus on that point. This point regardless of claims of lack enforcement shall maintain of greatest importance.

The ramifications of the code as written have not yet been realized by most yet as they are un aware of the original interpetation.

The next thing we will be doing is ripping out oven circuits in homes because the owner chose to go Gas or a combo and the circuit now needs to be 20 or 30 Vs 50. How many of you code compliant people are going to break the law. Or maybe loose work to a misinformed contractor or Handyman.
If I can't use this info to make comment on the 2014 NEC at least I can try with the California Electric code wich is a later version.
I think this is a good start.

I am peeved enough.
What need to know is what were the previous methods attempted. I am new to creating a change like this. The panels seem very arbitrary. One needs to know were this code has traveled before in order to attempt a change.

I have looked at the 2014 and I don't like the angle they are comming from.
The position targeting long runs or voltage drop is not even mentioned. I need to know what failed previously to try to do something different. Some of you where around back in the day way before I was a member when this first went sour. I'd like to know more about back then ( 2000- 2005)

I have looked at the 2014 and I don't like the angle they are comming from.
The position targeting long runs or voltage drop is not even mentioned. I need to know what failed previously to try to do something different. Some of you where around back in the day way before I was a member when this first went sour. I'd like to know more about back then ( 2000- 2005)

Go to the NFPAwebsite and download the ROPs and ROCs from the previous code cycles. Use the drop down to go to the year you want and then click on archived revision information.

Don, Illinois
“A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.” – Justice Scalia

What I would like to know is how did the interpetation go from upsizing when having long runs and voltage drop to where it has been in the last few cylces?

I don't know the history. But I suspect that when the code only required upsizing the EGC when the ungrounded was upsized for voltage drop reasons, any number of installations did not include upsizing the EGC because the installer claimed the ungrounded were upsized for reasons other than voltage drop. All an installer would have to say is that the larger conductors were all he had in the truck that day, and suddenly the requirement for upsizing the EGC did not apply. I have never agreed with the technical basis for this rule, but I would not want any technical merit it might have to be so easily circumvented.

I don't know the history. But I suspect that when the code only required upsizing the EGC when the ungrounded was upsized for voltage drop reasons, any number of installations did not include upsizing the EGC because the installer claimed the ungrounded were upsized for reasons other than voltage drop.

All an installer would have to say is that the larger conductors were all he had in the truck that day, and suddenly the requirement for upsizing the EGC did not apply. SO WHAT! , If it's a short distance what is the ramifications. ( less than 10-20 feet)

I have never agreed with the technical basis for this rule, but I would not want any technical merit it might have to be so easily circumvented.

Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19

5- 264 - (250-122): Accept
SUBMITTER: Jamie McNamara, Hastings, MN
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:
250-122 (b) Increased in sizeAdjustment for Voltage Drop. Where ungrounded conductors are increasedadjusted in size to compensate for voltage drop, equipment grounding conductors, where installed, shall be increased in sizeadjusted proportionately according to circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors.
SUBSTANTIATION: The current text is limited to voltage drop only and is subject to abuse and misinterpretation (e.g. it was done per the plans, not for voltage drop). The manufacturers
directions often call for conductor to be increased in size, with no explanation for why the ungrounded conductors size is increased, with no corresponding requirement for the equipment
grounding conductor to be increased.
PANEL ACTION: Accept.red = text to be deletedblue = new text

Thanks, I saw that ROP last night in my searches. So we have a union clout person by the name of Jamie McNamara,of Hastings, MN to blame for this. He states for this change " because of abuse" What does one call what we have today. " confusion " "sillyness" and "abusive rule". I'd like to really know what his pet peve was really about?

This change was made in 2002 NEC and some are here learning for the fist time what the ramifications are. Just on that point alone this is not written properly. Clear and concise language and intentions are my motto.